..So, what do we see?<\/p>\n
1.Essentially a single-clause Measure. The draft Measure contains a principal clause making it legal for the Synod to legislate by canon to enable women to be ordained as bishops and priests
\n…
\n The Canons of the Church of England will, however, now contain a new Canon C 29. This places a new duty on the House of Bishops to make Regulations (to be approved by a two-thirds majority of each House of General Synod) for \u201cthe resolution of disputes arising from the arrangements for which the House of Bishops\u2019 declaration on the Ministry of Bishops and Priests makes provision\u201d\u009d. This assumes, therefore, that the House of Bishops will have made such a declaration.
\n4.Annexed to the full report of the steering committee are:
\n\u00e2\u2013\u00a0a draft declaration on the Ministry of Bishops and Priests that the House of Bishops could make; and
\n\u00e2\u2013\u00a0a set of draft regulations for a system for resolving disputes, introducing an \u201cIndependent Reviewer\u201d\u009d \u201d\u201c rather like an ombudsman.
\n……
\nThe draft declaration sets down a process whereby the ministry of women priests and bishops may be declined. The only body competent to make such a request would be a PCC (cathedrals would not be able to decline the ministry of women priests or bishops). A PCC (and there is provision to make sure that it is a majority vote of the PCC and that the meeting is properly constituted) may pass a resolution requesting alternative episcopal and priestly ministry. The Bishop is then required to arrange such ministry. If there is a dispute as to whether and how that ministry is arranged the PCC will be able to ask for a review of arrangements by the newly created \u201cIndependent Reviewer\u201d\u009d. This person will act rather like an ombudsman in the public sector: he or she will be empowered to investigate (and to initiate investigations on his or her own authority) and to recommend courses of action that are then sent to the parties concerned and published.<\/p>\n
And what do we not see?<\/p>\n
The report makes clear that there are different reasons that will prompt a PCC to request \u201carrangements\u201d\u009d. Paragraph 22 of the draft declaration states that the House of Bishops \u201cwill provide guidance for bishops and parishes\u201d\u009d to help bishops, patrons and PCCs hold conversations to \u201cachieve an outcome that does not conflict with the nature of the conviction on this issue underlying the PCC\u2019s resolution\u201d\u009d.<\/p>\n
It is not clear what form this guidance will take. There is an aspiration for consistent practice throughout the country (paras 16 and 27) but there is no mention of the scope or limits of such \u201ctheological conviction\u201d\u009d.<\/p>\n
To take some examples of issues that will need clarification:<\/p>\n
\u00e2\u2013\u00a0would a parish be able to insist on oversight from a male bishop who shared its stance on male headship?
\n\u00e2\u2013\u00a0would a parish be able to reject the ministry of a priest or bishop who did not accept the ministry of women?
\n\u00e2\u2013\u00a0would a PCC be able to insist on limiting sacramental ministry in that parish to male priests ordained by male bishops, or, to go one step further, ordained by male bishops in whose consecration female bishops had not taken part?
\n\u00e2\u2013\u00a0if it is practically impossible to provide ministry that takes into account all the convictions of a particular parish, what will be the threshold at which the Independent Reviewer would reasonably entertain a grievance?…….<\/p>\n